These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Changing Logistics and the infinite repair:

Author
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#1 - 2012-03-28 03:48:59 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
I've said for the past 3-4 years that logistics are a huge issue in game since there's very little about logistical warfare that promotes strategic combat. So I've devised a way to keep the intent of logistics, but boost active tanking, and determine more about fitting decisions

The 2 big problems

Currently, active tanking has little role in the game. Everything in game is buffer with no incentive to fit active tank modules.

Logistics are odd in their performance as they require no skill for the person receiving the logistics other than a timely request


So how would I change the concept

Remove the direct transfer of armor and shields from logistics to receiver. Instead, call it a nanobot (armor) or plasma (shield) transfer system.

Here's how it works:

In order to utilize logistics I must have an active repair system on my ship. A small armor repairer can receive the equivalent of a small armor transfer amount per module per cycle. Obviously, it can have multiple remote repair modules working at once, and each module can transfer more armor. But no one remote armor transfer can send more than what the small repairer can receive. However, my active repairer must actually apply the transfer, meaning a cycle time and application.

Essentially, the logistics ships/mods boost the performance of my repairer within respect to my ship size. However, I must have the capacitor, and the cycle time to apply the repair

The same works for shield




  • How do you prevent stockpiling logistics repairs on a ship over time?

  • It's always cycle based. So whatever logistics support you got during that cycle, is applied. For armor, it's applied at the end of the cycle, for shields, you always get that initial base boost, then collect plasma during the cycle time to be used on the next boost.

  • Why is this better?

  • There are going to be obvious gaps in repairs since it's only your active repairers that apply. No more consistent unbreakable stream of repairs, but rather questions of can you out damage the cycle of repair

    It also means there are ways to break up logistics networks besides just ECCM

    The active repairer takes up a slot that would normally be dedicated to buffer tank


  • Why is this needed?

  • Combat over the past few years has devolved quite a bit to very lopsided affairs far to often. Fights are skewing so badly that it's frequently true for one side to hardly take any losses (5-10) in a fight where 100s of ships are on either side. It develops a sense of hopelessness when one side can be so logistically strong that you can't break the chain of their ships and fights devolve to: bring more people.




The goal is to provide more ways to break up and reduce logistical efficiency, bring back some incentive and reasons to fit active repairers, and reduce the very large buffers a lot of ships fitting.

I'm probably going to heavily refine this idea as I think more about it and see reply, but the overall goal is to make combat less about that initial alpha strike to overwhelm a logistics team, and more about tactical decisions and adjustments in real time.
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#2 - 2012-03-28 05:09:29 UTC
Hey I'm Down,

An interesting idea, but alas, i'm sorry but I disagree.

First off there is the fitting issues. Several ships are designed to be used in a fleet. Consider for example the Abaddon, a ship that isn't meant to fit an active tank, which is why it gets 5% armor resist bonus. Then consider say a Hyperion which does get an active tank bonus - a ship you rarely see in fleets for exactly that reason. You'd have to change several ships to really make this work.

In addition, many fleet ships already have capacitor issues, and by further increasing the reliance on an active tank as well - you will just end up with everyone fitting way more cap drain on their fleet ships and rolling out Bhaalghorns.

In addition logistics ships can happily be countered by more than just ECM. Cap draining is a real issue if done properly, and if they are at range, sensor dampening, as well as shooting them with good switching shot calling.

Two of the logistics only work while cap shared so removing one causes real issues in a fleet. And ships like Scimitar and Oneiros can be jammed by non Minmitar ECM racials because they don't typically have fitting space and capacitor for ECCM. It's not hard to do, and scimitars themselves are easy to kill if you bring the right tools for the job - i.e. long range webbing and assault frigates, which will happily tear them a new one.

Logistics are already quite time intensive to train properly in themselves - how many people bother to get Logistics V?

Players already have skills that effect logistics - both resistances and buffer are defining factors in how successful logistics ships can be in their role, so pilot fits and skill points truly matter.

In terms of a pilot being more active in a repair scenario, how many pilots actually overload their hardeners properly when being shot at? This changes the repair amount significantly, but not all pilots are savvy enough to do it in the heat of battle or in time, let alone use nanite repair paste mid combat successfully. That's quite a bit of micro management right there, when you're also trying to follow shot calling.

Personally, after flying with Rooks and Kings, I would suggest that bringing more people is not really the solution, but looking at tactics that will cause confusion and break how the logistics team work. I've seen this happen time and time again. There are also clever ways to overload the broadcast stream if you use DPS properly shot calling properly. Quite simply logistics pilots can't keep up, but alas, most shot calling is fairly rigid and predictable.

I think the real issue here is, tactics. And how they are used in fleets. Most fleets are run in a fairly rigid way, which is not how you will break a logistics backed fleet. The trouble isn't in the mechanics of EvE, but in how fleets are working as a team to counter them properly.

Consider the historical differences in infantry tactics between the two great wars. In the first world war, tactics were rigid and inflexible, relying on sheer numbers - exactly as you are suggesting and I guess seeing as a way of 'breaking' the opposition.

By the end of that war, tactics had started to change, to small teams of soldiers working in a far more flexible way, the tactics of which were evolved in the second world war, so that it was no longer about sheer numbers, but how small teams worked together.

We are still in a situation where fleets are run in exactly that same, inflexible, rigid way. To win against logistics you have to think differently than most EvE corps and alliances are currently capable of.

I would suggest the solution is in adapting how fleet leadership, organisation and tactics and brought together in fleets, rather than problems with EvE itself. It is just a matter of FCs and corps evolving, which is why EvE is so brilliant, that it can create this sort of challenge.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2012-03-28 14:41:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
"Logistics are odd in their performance as they require no skill for the person receiving the logistics other than a timely request"


Stopped reading here.

Not supporting.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#4 - 2012-03-28 14:48:31 UTC  |  Edited by: admiral root
Never mind, you edited your post just before I hit the quote button.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#5 - 2012-03-28 15:26:40 UTC
Instead of forcing people to fit otherwise useless (niche enough to be mostly true) modules to get some love, why not limit the amount of reps a given ship can benefit from?

Introduce yet another attribute for ships: Nanobot adaptability.

Differentiate it based on hull size (obviously), Meta level (ex. Navy hulls may be better at managing incoming nanobots), race and lastly specific hulls. Fitting an active unit could then signify that the ship is already prepared to funnel bots through its systems, thus gaining a bonus to said attribute.
Extra Fluff: With a separate attribute like that, individual ships like the Myrm and Hype for example can be given a truly unique tank potential .. been mantioned a lot that their active bonuses be swapped for incoming RR ditto.

No to forcing specific fits, YES to mixing things up.
Wrik Hoover
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2012-03-28 16:21:50 UTC
on behalf of pl,

shut up yaay
KSUDruid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#7 - 2012-03-28 16:21:59 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
Alot of useless words


The idea is completely useless and irrelevant just like most of your suggestions.


Tertiacero
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#8 - 2012-03-28 16:24:59 UTC
Wrik Hoover wrote:
on behalf of pl,

shut up yaay

Not emptyquoting
BlueMajere
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#9 - 2012-03-28 16:44:03 UTC
Tertiacero wrote:
Wrik Hoover wrote:
on behalf of pl,

shut up yaay

Not emptyquoting


indeed
Rebnok
Dependable Delinquents
Fraternity.
#10 - 2012-03-28 16:58:18 UTC
BlueMajere wrote:
Tertiacero wrote:
Wrik Hoover wrote:
on behalf of pl,

shut up yaay

Not emptyquoting


indeed

good poast
Phoenus
Doomheim
#11 - 2012-03-28 17:18:34 UTC
Rebnok wrote:
BlueMajere wrote:
Tertiacero wrote:
Wrik Hoover wrote:
on behalf of pl,

shut up yaay

Not emptyquoting


indeed

good poast


Quoting dis.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2012-03-28 17:22:18 UTC
this thread is full of win..... PL bashing one ot their own. Hillarious.

Def. Made my Morning here.LolLolLolLol

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

Ravelin Eb
Blue Canary
Watch This
#13 - 2012-03-28 17:52:53 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
this thread is full of win..... PL bashing one ot their own. Hillarious.

Def. Made my Morning here.LolLolLolLol


Yaay certainly isn't counted as one of us.
Max Butched
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-03-28 17:58:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Max Butched
Drake Draconis wrote:
this thread is full of win..... PL bashing one ot their own. Hillarious.

Def. Made my Morning here.LolLolLolLol

Yaay has never been accepted into PL as one of our own

edit: one of the ********* fc from defeated alliance for shadoo's private collection for sure
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#15 - 2012-03-28 22:20:54 UTC
Max Butched wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
this thread is full of win..... PL bashing one ot their own. Hillarious.

Def. Made my Morning here.LolLolLolLol

Yaay has never been accepted into PL as one of our own

edit: one of the ********* fc from defeated alliance for shadoo's private collection for sure


GOT YO TITANS
Hinkledolph
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2012-03-29 06:56:53 UTC
Wrik Hoover wrote:
on behalf of pl,

shut up yaay

StainLessStealRat
State War Academy
Caldari State
#17 - 2012-03-29 08:58:54 UTC
Hinkledolph wrote:
Wrik Hoover wrote:
on behalf of pl,

shut up yaay



I support Hinkledolph's proposal.
Gallinae
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2012-03-29 12:38:39 UTC
Wrik Hoover wrote:
on behalf of pl,

shut up yaay

I like this post.
Bernadictus
Out Of The Depths Academy
xX SERENITY Xx
#19 - 2012-03-29 14:27:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Bernadictus
Wrik Hoover wrote:
on behalf of pl,

shut up yaay

Supporting this idea.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#20 - 2012-03-31 12:41:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
Bernadictus wrote:
Wrik Hoover wrote:
on behalf of pl,

shut up yaay

Supporting this idea.


Not empty quoting

Edit: we need more chamans in space